Search

Experience Spotlight

On December 1, 2016, Parker Hannifin Corporation and CLARCOR Inc. announced that the companies have entered into a definitive agreement under which Parker will acquire CLARCOR for approximately $4.3 billion in cash, including the assumption of net debt. The transaction has been unanimously approved by the board of directors of each company. Upon closing of the transaction, expected to be completed by or during the first quarter of Parker’s fiscal year 2018, CLARCOR will be combined with Parker’s Filtration Group to form a leading and diverse global filtration business. Bass, Berry & Sims has served CLARCOR as primary corporate and securities counsel for 10 years and served as lead counsel on this transaction. Read more here.

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Companies go public to raise capital to fuel growth, pay down debt and provide liquidity to shareholders. Although all issuers and offerings are different, the basic process of going public remains relatively constant. Blueprint for an IPO identifies the key players, details the process and identifies the obligations companies will face after going public.

June 27, 2014

In a landmark decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled yesterday that President Obama's three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) were unconstitutional. Click here for the ruling. President Obama had relied upon the Constitution's Recess Appointments Clause to appoint three members of the NLRB. The Court ruled, however, that the "pro forma" sessions in January 2012 when the recess appointments were made were not truly a "recess" of the Senate within the meaning of that provision of the Constitution. Since the NLRB was not lawfully appointed, its decision that the employer in the case, Noel Canning, had violated the law was not a proper finding and was not enforceable against the employer.

The ruling has greater impact, however. The ruling also calls into question the legality of all other decisions by the NLRB for the approximately 2-year period after the recess appointments in January 2012 until the NLRB became properly constituted by Senate confirmation of the President’s appointments. Click here for a discussion of some significant NLRB cases that will be impacted by this decision.

Any attempted rule-making by the improperly constituted NLRB is likewise in question. In addition, other rulings, such as the D.R. Horton ruling, were decided by the NLRB when the slim majority deciding the case included a similar recess appointment. The D.R. Horton ruling, which made class action waivers in arbitration agreements illegal, is also now in question.

Of course, with the NLRB now properly constituted, it can make effective rulings going forward. Look for the following:

A litigation "fix" – the NLRB will pursue cases by which to "fix" the rulings now in question.

This will take some time, however, as the Board will have to wait for the right cases to proceed through a tedious litigation process.

The substantive decisions likely will not change.

This approach will reveal continuation of the NLRB's aggressive litigation positions.

A rule-making "fix" – the NLRB will pursue the process of rule-making in order to "fix" any case decisions or rule-making now in question.

This already had begun with the so-called "quickie" or "ambush" election rules.

This too is a tedious process and requires a notice and comment period.

There is also – and perhaps more significantly – political fallout. Its practical effect will be to heighten awareness of the NLRB's positions, with a corresponding scrutiny from both sides. Labor will increase its outcry for the NLRB to issue rulings to help the downtrodden worker and the embattled middle class; management and employers will increase their outcry that the NLRB's positions are killing jobs and harming, not helping, working Americans.

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.